|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
Software = Math = should not get patent = Economy benefits (today, we have SW
Patent insanity).
Costs to our futures are huge, as you gotta be huge just to follow a SW patent
case forward to a judgement.
Crazy money. Too bad the little guy can't play, so gets hurt by legal system
that is lacking the tech ability to see the truth (NO SW PATENTS SHOULD
EXIST).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ore on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
In the UK, Oracle would be required to meet Google's costs/
That would be a strong deterrent to such ill-founded suits.
---
Oliver Elphick[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
More - waste of even more millions of dollars (to follow as
we watch Appeals).
Well, we do know now that the "little guy" can't compete on
this playing field. So, we have the "lords" of industry, as
the only ones who can throw away money like this, everyone
else would be bankrupt long before it came to trial even.
Geeze, sure wish the US Supreme Court ruled correctly in
Bilski (and put software patents out of business, like they
should have ruled). Instead, we have a big mess, with the
USPTO not smart enough to understand tech patents, so they
approve a patent, then they take it away upon review? The
judge in this case really seemed to struggle to understand
them. The reason why they are so hard to understand, is
because they should not exist.
Why allow a lawyer to write a patent on a software program
that already in the code tells what it is doing (you can't
be more exact then to read the code to understand what the
software is doing - so why hire a lawyer, to write a patent
that might even broaden the scope of what that document
covers, simply because the lawyer can't in English, match
with an explaination, what the program does in the first
place)?
Copyright does protect that story in the software code.
However, in the copyright law that governs software, you
can't exclude someone from also writing a story about
witches. With 100 years of protection of a baddly written
piece of software, if not one else can not write one that is
better, then society is HARMED by having to use the baddly
written one for over 100 years (length of time of copyright
protection)? Is that what the founders of our country were
thinking about, or should software copyright be also
designed to pay the author for a limited period of time that
is short enough, so that society benefits from the work
going into the public domain (with all the benefits that
society can then gain from by having it in the public
domain)?
Logical use of the Socratic Method, gets us to the lowest
common denominator. It is what we do with this knowledge as
a society, that is then important.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
